Welpee wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Cam has been trash for so long that I'm still a bit skeptical. He is playing well tho...I guess I could be talked into it. I view TJ as a high level. Wouldn't mind having him, but it means the Knicks are likely relying on Rose to start, which scares me. I guess it depends on how much Lonzo is asking for.

Lonza Ball isn't a better player than either of them.

The appeal of Lonzo Ball is you expect and HOPE he becomes a better player than he is.

He RIGHT now in his best season doesn't actually do anything better than either of them, and does a lot of things worse.

Exactly. Isn't that what good front offices are suppose to do, acquire players before they blow up?

Only IF hey blow up.

Sometimes its their job to identify NBA players with talent and fit into their cap situation that can help them win games.

Sometimes its not all about prospecting to try to field a '5 starters under 28' dynasty squad.

Payne is averaging 17 minutes per game off the bench. If you are going to extrapolate his production into full time, starter minutes that would be foolish. TJ McConnell is a scrappy, journeyman, career back up who looks good for stretches of time because of his hustle but isn't very talented and certainly not a starter in this league. Nice guy to have on your team, not a guy you give the keys to and anoint him as your starting point guard. Plus both of these guys are undersized at only 6'1".

And producing better than Ball.

Again, only asking for a 25m role from these guys. Are you asking 26-year-old Payne to increase his minutes, yes, but McConnell went from a 17-min player last season to a 25 mins player this season and his productively not only extrapolated, it improved.

Sometimes you need to put away superficial cliches about the path of NBA players and trust in their production and not unproven formulas.

Lonzo may not be Jason Kidd, but he certainly has way more upside than Payne or McConnell. And this is coming from someone who isn't really a big fan of Lonzo.

He does, but Lonzo Ball may be one of the NBA players who never reach their ceiling, which in fact describes the majority of them.

Knicks thinking might be changed. They may stop chasing upside that they can prospect for and can wait a few years ago and may start prioritizing adding productivity to a roster ready to begin climbing the ladder.

ramtour420 wrote:Let me try to sell you Ball. The thing is this is likely our last year with cap space to sign a big name.PG being our biggest weakness to boot. Once we are capped out trying to retain the main cogs we are likely going to only have the vets minimums and the MLE. You cannot bring in any even potential difference makers at that point. If we sign career backups now instead of one such potential difference maker( just think about what Thibs and our development staff can do with Ball)it will be a wasted opportunity. That's why

I get the Ball argument, it's wishful thinking about his potential over his production.

But he might be in that category of player in which you're paying a high price for potential, which often doesn't pan out.

The draft is the place to prospect. Euro-players on team friendly deals is for prospecting. And as much as Randle might be a poster boy for what people hope for from Ball, he actually arrived on the Knicks on a deal that somewhat reflected this.

I don't see Ball as a perfect fit for the Knicks needs (Conley is a VERY good fit from a pure b-ball standpoint, lowry to a little lesser degree), and a lottery ticket to boot.

Just have no infatuation with this guy. Smells of a career 'what if' to me.

Welpee wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Cam has been trash for so long that I'm still a bit skeptical. He is playing well tho...I guess I could be talked into it. I view TJ as a high level. Wouldn't mind having him, but it means the Knicks are likely relying on Rose to start, which scares me. I guess it depends on how much Lonzo is asking for.

Lonza Ball isn't a better player than either of them.

The appeal of Lonzo Ball is you expect and HOPE he becomes a better player than he is.

He RIGHT now in his best season doesn't actually do anything better than either of them, and does a lot of things worse.

Exactly. Isn't that what good front offices are suppose to do, acquire players before they blow up?

Only IF hey blow up.

Sometimes its their job to identify NBA players with talent and fit into their cap situation that can help them win games.

Sometimes its not all about prospecting to try to field a '5 starters under 28' dynasty squad.

Payne is averaging 17 minutes per game off the bench. If you are going to extrapolate his production into full time, starter minutes that would be foolish. TJ McConnell is a scrappy, journeyman, career back up who looks good for stretches of time because of his hustle but isn't very talented and certainly not a starter in this league. Nice guy to have on your team, not a guy you give the keys to and anoint him as your starting point guard. Plus both of these guys are undersized at only 6'1".

And producing better than Ball.

Again, only asking for a 25m role from these guys. Are you asking 26-year-old Payne to increase his minutes, yes, but McConnell went from a 17-min player last season to a 25 mins player this season and his productively not only extrapolated, it improved.

Sometimes you need to put away superficial cliches about the path of NBA players and trust in their production and not unproven formulas.

Lonzo may not be Jason Kidd, but he certainly has way more upside than Payne or McConnell. And this is coming from someone who isn't really a big fan of Lonzo.

He does, but Lonzo Ball may be one of the NBA players who never reach their ceiling, which in fact describes the majority of them.

Knicks thinking might be changed. They may stop chasing upside that they can prospect for and can wait a few years ago and may start prioritizing adding productivity to a roster ready to begin climbing the ladder.

So you prefer rolling the dice on two mediocre, undersized point guards who have only proven to be good role players off the bench? To be clear, I'm not all in on Lonzo. If we have to dramatically overpay to get him, I say pass. But if can get him at around $15M on a deal that works for our big picture plan, I'd rather go that route. I have a lot more confidence in Lonzo elevating his game to near all-star levels versus expecting that from Payne or McConnell.

They aren't mediocre.

If they are, that's a bigger indictment on Ball, who isn't as productive.

And even when they struggled, both had a discernible high-end skill, distribution.

Look, I don't think an NBA GMs job is to be convinced that only guys under 25 and who were drafted high can become more than they've been. Teams can just outsource running their teams to Twitter then.

And you say "if" he blows up. If you could guarantee player development being a GM would be easy wouldn't it? If metrics were the be all and end all we should just hire a fantasy hoops expert. It's a calculated risk and you have to balance numbers with human analysis. Just like signing Randle was a calculated risk.

Yes, it would be. But there is no rule you have no other choice but to spend $15-20m dollars on a chance. a GM CAN control that.

And not for nothing, but Ball's height is a metric. His draft position is a metric. His age is a metric.

My human analysis doesn't match your human analysis is all. I don't see a guy you write a big check for muliple years for in advance of being worth it.

Knickoftime wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:Let me try to sell you Ball. The thing is this is likely our last year with cap space to sign a big name.PG being our biggest weakness to boot. Once we are capped out trying to retain the main cogs we are likely going to only have the vets minimums and the MLE. You cannot bring in any even potential difference makers at that point. If we sign career backups now instead of one such potential difference maker( just think about what Thibs and our development staff can do with Ball)it will be a wasted opportunity. That's why

I get the Ball argument, it's wishful thinking about his potential over his production.

But he might be in that category of player in which you're paying a high price for potential, which often doesn't pan out.

The draft is the place to prospect. Euro-players on team friendly deals is for prospecting. And as much as Randle might be a poster boy for what people hope for from Ball, he actually arrived on the Knicks on a deal that somewhat reflected this.

I don't see Ball as a perfect fit for the Knicks needs (Conley is a VERY good fit from a pure b-ball standpoint, lowry to a little lesser degree), and a lottery ticket to boot.

Just have no infatuation with this guy. Smells of a career 'what if' to me.

Remember when Randle started shooting 3's a couple of seasons ago? at like 29%? Well Ball also used to shoot it horribly. Randle worked on his shot because it was a weakness. Ball worked on his shot because it was a weakness. That smells more like another signing of a soon to be star player because they work on their game. Just need the right coach/system.

Knickoftime wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Cam has been trash for so long that I'm still a bit skeptical. He is playing well tho...I guess I could be talked into it. I view TJ as a high level. Wouldn't mind having him, but it means the Knicks are likely relying on Rose to start, which scares me. I guess it depends on how much Lonzo is asking for.

Lonza Ball isn't a better player than either of them.

The appeal of Lonzo Ball is you expect and HOPE he becomes a better player than he is.

He RIGHT now in his best season doesn't actually do anything better than either of them, and does a lot of things worse.

Exactly. Isn't that what good front offices are suppose to do, acquire players before they blow up?

Only IF hey blow up.

Sometimes its their job to identify NBA players with talent and fit into their cap situation that can help them win games.

Sometimes its not all about prospecting to try to field a '5 starters under 28' dynasty squad.

Payne is averaging 17 minutes per game off the bench. If you are going to extrapolate his production into full time, starter minutes that would be foolish. TJ McConnell is a scrappy, journeyman, career back up who looks good for stretches of time because of his hustle but isn't very talented and certainly not a starter in this league. Nice guy to have on your team, not a guy you give the keys to and anoint him as your starting point guard. Plus both of these guys are undersized at only 6'1".

And producing better than Ball.

Again, only asking for a 25m role from these guys. Are you asking 26-year-old Payne to increase his minutes, yes, but McConnell went from a 17-min player last season to a 25 mins player this season and his productively not only extrapolated, it improved.

Sometimes you need to put away superficial cliches about the path of NBA players and trust in their production and not unproven formulas.

Lonzo may not be Jason Kidd, but he certainly has way more upside than Payne or McConnell. And this is coming from someone who isn't really a big fan of Lonzo.

He does, but Lonzo Ball may be one of the NBA players who never reach their ceiling, which in fact describes the majority of them.

Knicks thinking might be changed. They may stop chasing upside that they can prospect for and can wait a few years ago and may start prioritizing adding productivity to a roster ready to begin climbing the ladder.

So you prefer rolling the dice on two mediocre, undersized point guards who have only proven to be good role players off the bench? To be clear, I'm not all in on Lonzo. If we have to dramatically overpay to get him, I say pass. But if can get him at around $15M on a deal that works for our big picture plan, I'd rather go that route. I have a lot more confidence in Lonzo elevating his game to near all-star levels versus expecting that from Payne or McConnell.

They aren't mediocre.

If they are, that's a bigger indictment on Ball, who isn't as productive.

And even when they struggled, both had a discernible high-end skill, distribution.

Look, I don't think an NBA GMs job is to be convinced that only guys under 25 and who were drafted high can become more than they've been. Teams can just outsource running their teams to Twitter then.

And you say "if" he blows up. If you could guarantee player development being a GM would be easy wouldn't it? If metrics were the be all and end all we should just hire a fantasy hoops expert. It's a calculated risk and you have to balance numbers with human analysis. Just like signing Randle was a calculated risk.

Yes, it would be. But there is no rule you have no other choice but to spend $15-20m dollars on a chance. a GM CAN control that.

And not for nothing, but Ball's height is a metric. His draft position is a metric. His age is a metric.

My human analysis doesn't match your human analysis is all. I don't see a guy you write a big check for muliple years for in advance of being worth it.

Let's see how Payne and McConnell do in the free agent market.

EwingsGlass wrote:I’m looking at wingspan and defensive prowess and neither makes me excited. You have to at least beat Elfrid’s defense before I replace Elf. I see Elf as the #2 PG that happens to play with the first unit in the first quarter. Ball can replace Elf in that role without giving up much, except for Elf’s ability to attack the paint. But, my major complaint was that I preferred RJ having that role anyway. Ball can spread the floor some with his shooting, create ball movement, be spectacular in transition and be a lead defender on the perimeter with the length to shorten the floor.

Norman Powell is 6’3 with a 6’11 wingspan and a 38” vertical. UFA. Shoots 40% from 3.

Wingspan
Ball 6’9
Barrett 6’10
Powell 6’11
Randle 7’0
Robinson/Noel 7’4

If you thought this years defense was good...that’s just a lot of arm for guys to shoot over with 4 guys that can shoot 38% from 3.

I mean. It’s not easy to check and I could be wrong, but Philly is the only team I can think of with that kind of length.

I like Powell a lot as an UFA and would target him.

No way Barrett can replace Elf in the rim attaching role, not soon anyway, he is a long way off from finishing or making the passes in that capacity.

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:I’m looking at wingspan and defensive prowess and neither makes me excited. You have to at least beat Elfrid’s defense before I replace Elf. I see Elf as the #2 PG that happens to play with the first unit in the first quarter. Ball can replace Elf in that role without giving up much, except for Elf’s ability to attack the paint. But, my major complaint was that I preferred RJ having that role anyway. Ball can spread the floor some with his shooting, create ball movement, be spectacular in transition and be a lead defender on the perimeter with the length to shorten the floor.

Norman Powell is 6’3 with a 6’11 wingspan and a 38” vertical. UFA. Shoots 40% from 3.

Wingspan
Ball 6’9
Barrett 6’10
Powell 6’11
Randle 7’0
Robinson/Noel 7’4

If you thought this years defense was good...that’s just a lot of arm for guys to shoot over with 4 guys that can shoot 38% from 3.

I mean. It’s not easy to check and I could be wrong, but Philly is the only team I can think of with that kind of length.

I like Powell a lot as an UFA and would target him.

No way Barrett can replace Elf in the rim attaching role, not soon anyway, he is a long way off from finishing or making the passes in that capacity.

Elf has completely abandoned this aspect of the game. When Elf decides to go to the hoop, he is shooting it, regardless if there is one or a crowd of players packing the paint. Which is why he gets his sh** punched so often. He never kicks it out for open 3's....I think Rose has been more effective, especially of late, at getting to the rim and finishing or kicking it out with his jump passes.